First off, how many pundits were calling this a weak DT class just weeks ago? Now it is being proclaimed as quite deep. But there are valid reasons to think Seattle is not interested in rookie growing pains at that position.

In the time since Pete took over, Seattle has not spent high draft capital at a few positions, one of those being DT. Instead, Seattle has signed a variety of experienced free agents. Some of them were journeymen, some were pricy free agents, some were patchwork, and some were our own, with Mebane and Red both being allowed to hit free agency, get offers from other teams, then being re-signed for pricy deals. Pete does not over or under value the position. Bruce Irvin stands out as the single rookie expected to contribute much on the defensive line. Contrast him with experienced players like Branch, McDonald via trade, Jones, Siaalvi, Clemons via trade, and i forget the name of a couple of others like the 3-4 DE malcontent trade with San Francisco in 2010. Point being, Pete wants more experienced players at DT.

I think Starks will be a no go. Starks is going to get his last bite at free agency this year, and 9 years is a lot of miles on a DT who won't want a one year deal. I think Melton is also a no go. A bit undersized, his game is all about speed and stunts. So far, we have not seen Seattle do much of that on first and 2nd down, and I can't see them signing a pass rush DT for what Melton will command. Besides, I am going to be very surprised if the Bears let Melton go easily.

I keep going back to Dorsey and Bryant. Dorsey was labeled a bust in KC, he simply isn't. 5 years in the league for Dorsey, 4 for Bryant. That is our niche, 2nd deals. DTs are high wear items, I would expect the contracts to be team friendly after only two or three years. Dorsey is a touch above Branch in talents, IMO, and Bryant is a bit more athletic than either Branch or Dorsey.

Will Seattle select a DT in the first three rounds? It would be a first, wouldn't it?

Seems like Jaye Howard is an afterthought around these parts. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see him blossom this year under Quinn. So for that reason alone I agree with you, let alone the other points you made.

McGruff wrote:Too small a sample size to make sweeping generalizations.

Until last year we'd not drafted a DE or LB or QB early either.

We'll draft where need and value align. In this draft that looks like DL.

I think you missed Scott's point. His opinion is we can't afford to go with a starting rookie DT. As it is, we will already be relying a lot on another young and developing D linemen with Irvin. The preference

It's really a philosophical debate rather than "sweeping generalizations".

McGruff wrote:Too small a sample size to make sweeping generalizations.

Until last year we'd not drafted a DE or LB or QB early either.

We'll draft where need and value align. In this draft that looks like DL.

Oh, I have been wrong before. Lots. I don't think I will be wrong about this, though. You said we will draft where need and value align, and I don't think there will be much value at DT by pick 25. Taking a defensive tackle at 25 could mean getting the 5th, 6th, 7th rated DT out of the group, and there will be better rated players at other positions of need. The difference between the DTs most likely to be there at 25 and the DTs likely to be there at pick 100 are not that big. Brandon Williams is not that different than Montori Hughes for both talent and amount of gamble, but as of now they look like they could be 2 or 3 rounds different in draft selection. I do think we might see a DT in the third this year. There are a couple of players like Floyd or the Mizzou kid that I could see us taking at 25, but I also don't think they will be there. On the other hand, the free agents offer little mystery beyond wondering what they will cost. The guy who could stop the run in Kansas City can stop the run in Seattle. Part of my argument is that they place such a premium on stopping the run that they will not gamble on that with a rookie. The pure number of veterans they have cycled through here in just 3 seasons as opposed to the dearth of rookies getting play time at the DT spot would strongly suggest how they feel. IMO.

I think the last few years have proven that Carroll will not hesitate to play rookies at ANY position. Quarterback? check. Quarterback of the front seven? Check. Quarterback of the secondary? Check. Left Tackle? Check.

And frankly I don't care if we are talking about the 6th or 7th best DT, as long as the player is an impact player.

I'm not even saying they HAVE to take a DT early. BPA at DT, DE, WR, OL, TE, OLB or CB.

They have really had no problem going through growing pains at other positions since they got here. Quite the opposite really (Sweezy being a good example). I don't think they would view the right DT as a liability, at all, but more a chance to get younger, cheaper, faster, and tougher at the position. It really fits into their whole draft mantra at all the positions on the team so far.

McGruff wrote:Too small a sample size to make sweeping generalizations.

Until last year we'd not drafted a DE or LB or QB early either.

We'll draft where need and value align. In this draft that looks like DL.

Oh, I have been wrong before. Lots. I don't think I will be wrong about this, though. You said we will draft where need and value align, and I don't think there will be much value at DT by pick 25. Taking a defensive tackle at 25 could mean getting the 5th, 6th, 7th rated DT out of the group, and there will be better rated players at other positions of need. The difference between the DTs most likely to be there at 25 and the DTs likely to be there at pick 100 are not that big. Brandon Williams is not that different than Montori Hughes for both talent and amount of gamble, but as of now they look like they could be 2 or 3 rounds different in draft selection. I do think we might see a DT in the third this year. There are a couple of players like Floyd or the Mizzou kid that I could see us taking at 25, but I also don't think they will be there. On the other hand, the free agents offer little mystery beyond wondering what they will cost. The guy who could stop the run in Kansas City can stop the run in Seattle. Part of my argument is that they place such a premium on stopping the run that they will not gamble on that with a rookie. The pure number of veterans they have cycled through here in just 3 seasons as opposed to the dearth of rookies getting play time at the DT spot would strongly suggest how they feel. IMO.

No offense, but you should have added this part to you OP. That's really the reason you're saying we're going to go after a veteran DT instead of a early round pick, right? Because at #25, there won't be the right player? Now, that actually makes more sense (right or wrong).

Recon_Hawk wrote:They have really had no problem going through growing pains at other positions since they got here. Quite the opposite really (Sweezy being a good example). I don't think they would view the right DT as a liability, at all, but more a chance to get younger, cheaper, faster, and tougher at the position. It really fits into their whole draft mantra at all the positions on the team so far.

I'm not sure Sweezy is a good example. He was a serious weakness for us last season.

He has potential, but he was way over his head - and understandably so switching from defense to offense and getting thrown into the fire.

I can see them identifying a glaring need and drafting that guy regardless of his draft stock.

What I am trying to say is if they think they have a need they will use a first to try and fill it even if it looks like crappy value. Don't be surprised if they draft a D lineman that is sketchy as hell if all the good ones are gone.

Recon_Hawk wrote:They have really had no problem going through growing pains at other positions since they got here. Quite the opposite really (Sweezy being a good example). I don't think they would view the right DT as a liability, at all, but more a chance to get younger, cheaper, faster, and tougher at the position. It really fits into their whole draft mantra at all the positions on the team so far.

I'm not sure Sweezy is a good example. He was a serious weakness for us last season.

He has potential, but he was way over his head - and understandably so switching from defense to offense and getting thrown into the fire.

The fun part is, Pete and John always seem to pull a surprise.

He's the best example. He was a 7th rd defensive tackle turned offensive guard. Completely undeveloped and raw. He shouldn't have been starting one game, yet Pete starts him even in the playoffs because he isn't worried about "growing pains". He wants to get as young and talented as quick as possible. That means playing young players even if they need work.

Conventional thinking and rankings about players needs to be thrown out the window when it comes to us. It's all about how Pete and John see players. We have taken players above where so called experts rank them several times, we have taken players and switched them to new positions. We have taken players that everyone called reaches.

For sake of arguement we could draft a LB and make him a FB or a DE and move him to DT based on the skills they see in players. We also know they use veterans to school young guys in camp and then cut them, they use veterans as stop gaps till a player with the skill set they want is obtained in the draft. Just because we have used players off the waiver wire to patch things does not mean thats how we will operate going forward.

Still using the Green Bay Model as a reference, they build thru the draft, you just can't draft all the players you need in one,two, or three, years. It's a process that could take a decade to completley implement where the depth is developed across the board to replace any starters that are released and or over priced.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

McGruff wrote:I think the last few years have proven that Carroll will not hesitate to play rookies at ANY position. Quarterback? check. Quarterback of the front seven? Check. Quarterback of the secondary? Check. Left Tackle? Check.

PC didn't have much of a choice with any of those. Okung, Thomas, and Wagner were all top-60 picks at positions where there were no other options. Kind of a no-brainer. So was Wilson once he outplayed Flynn. Will a first-round DT be able to outdo the other options on this team? That's more of an open question.

McGruff wrote:And frankly I don't care if we are talking about the 6th or 7th best DT, as long as the player is an impact player.

Right, but 6th/7th best DT's tend not to be impact players.

McGruff wrote:I'm not even saying they HAVE to take a DT early. BPA at DT, DE, WR, OL, TE, OLB or CB.

Scott is arriving at his opinion with the same mechanism that you are - going BPA. It's just that you and he disagree on the quality of this DT class and their fit on the Seahawks.

I think free agency will have a big impact on where we go in the 1st round. If we can a big receiver like Jared Cook, then we won't go WR/TE round 1. If we can sign a DT like Randy Starks or Desmond Bryant, then we won't go DT in the 1st round. If we can sign a DE like Osi Umenyiora or Dwight Freeney, we won't go DE round 1. I don't think we would go OLB (Khaseem Greene) round 1 unless we signed all three of them, which I don't think we would do because of the price. The 3 guys that I'm looking at in the draft are Jesse Williams, Alex Okafor, and Gavin Escobar. I could see us drafting any one of the 3 round 1, especially Gavin Escobar. I think he could be the next Jimmy Graham and the next Seattle pick that all the experts bash.

seahawks875 wrote:I think free agency will have a big impact on where we go in the 1st round. If we can a big receiver like Jared Cook, then we won't go WR/TE round 1. If we can sign a DT like Randy Starks or Desmond Bryant, then we won't go DT in the 1st round. If we can sign a DE like Osi Umenyiora or Dwight Freeney, we won't go DE round 1. I don't think we would go OLB (Khaseem Greene) round 1 unless we signed all three of them, which I don't think we would do because of the price. The 3 guys that I'm looking at in the draft are Jesse Williams, Alex Okafor, and Gavin Escobar. I could see us drafting any one of the 3 round 1, especially Gavin Escobar. I think he could be the next Jimmy Graham and the next Seattle pick that all the experts bash.

We will not spend big money on guys who have big ass contracts and are waiting for an ambulance call or are just about to collect their NFL social security checks. Get over it, were done with it were not going to do it, TIM RUSKELL IS NOT OUR GM.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

seahawks875 wrote:I think free agency will have a big impact on where we go in the 1st round. If we can a big receiver like Jared Cook, then we won't go WR/TE round 1. If we can sign a DT like Randy Starks or Desmond Bryant, then we won't go DT in the 1st round. If we can sign a DE like Osi Umenyiora or Dwight Freeney, we won't go DE round 1. I don't think we would go OLB (Khaseem Greene) round 1 unless we signed all three of them, which I don't think we would do because of the price. The 3 guys that I'm looking at in the draft are Jesse Williams, Alex Okafor, and Gavin Escobar. I could see us drafting any one of the 3 round 1, especially Gavin Escobar. I think he could be the next Jimmy Graham and the next Seattle pick that all the experts bash.

We will not spend big money on guys who have big ass contracts and are waiting for an ambulance call or are just about to collect their NFL social security checks. Get over it, were done with it were not going to do it, TIM RUSKELL IS NOT OUR GM.

I wasn't saying that we will spend big money in free agency, because of how many young players we have that will soon get big contracts. I think we will get a player on a cheap contract to be a role player, like I could see us signing osi Umenyouria to step in at LEO and rotate with Irvin until Clemons comes back. Then we could go DT and WR/TE in TE first 2 rounds.

I think DE or I am leaning toward LB as time goes by. I would be hesitant to take a LB that high but it depends on who is on the board. Skill position players like the receivers take longer to develop. I see depth added as FEs

The way many of the mock drafts are lining up... I'm not really seeing a player worth taking other than at WR at #25. We all know that things can change up a bit where players are projected after the combine. There's always risers and fallers. And, we know that Free Agency may sort some things out. I wonder how possible it would be to trade down and get out of the 1st round? With a team that only needs a few pieces, it might be more benefical to package picks to get closer to the front of mid-rounds / day 2, early day 3. Would it be helpful, financially, for the Hawks to not have to commit to a 1st rounder - especially if they're likely not going to be a starter? Wouldn't that, then, allow JS to get an early start on getting current key players that are due new contracts? I would still like to see an offensive game-changer like Tavon Austin to pair with Wilson for years to come. Austin has the potential to be a special player. Another receiver that sounds like he is rising up boards is Quinton Patton (La Tech). That guy sort of reminds me of Cliff Branch for some reason. There are some saying he may end up in the late 1st round. He does have the ability to separate. Not elite speed, but excellent game speed. Perhaps Terrance Williams might make the most sense, though, if available at #25 with the combination of Height and speed, I guess.

Excited to see the new pieces added and how they fit in to this Championship caliber team.

If you believe what JS says, then Seattle did not even rule out safety in round 1 last year. I imagine that this year John Schneider will once again have a diverse draft board in round 1. It will probably have pass rushing DEs on it. It will probably have pass rushing DTs on it. It will probably have versatile fast linebackers on it. It may possibly have WR/TE on it. And given that it had a safety on it last year, it may still have safety on it this year (Kenny Vaccaro).

So I think proclaiming that DT won't be an option at #25 kind of misses the point. If Seattle loves a DT, and he's there, of course he'd be considered. Maybe that guy is Richardson, maybe it's Short, maybe it's a Williams. Or maybe it's a player out of left field.

I don't really want Seattle to draft a DT in round 1, but you maybe have noticed that Seattle's system for drafting has not worked terribly well in round 1 the last couple years. Not to rip Carpenter or Irvin- but those were not great years to address those positions in round 1, yet Seattle did it anyway. Seattle passed on better players to select Carpenter, and they passed on better players to select Irvin, all because areas of highest need receive significant added consideration. If anything, that points to DT not only being a possibility, but probably even the strongest possibility, regardless of whether it is a good DT group or not.

Last edited by kearly on Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kearly wrote:If you believe what JS says, then Seattle did not even rule out safety in round 1 last year. I imagine that this year John Schneider will once again have a diverse draft board in round 1. It will probably have pass rushing DEs on it. It will probably have pass rushing DTs on it. It will probably have versatile fast linebackers on it. It may possibly have WR/TE on it. And given that it had a safety on it last year, it may still have safety on it this year (Kenny Vaccaro).

So I think proclaiming that DT won't be an option at #25 kind of misses the point. If Seattle loves a DT, and he's there, of course he'd be considered. Maybe that guy is Richardson, maybe it's Short, maybe it's a Williams. Or maybe it's a player out of left field.

I don't really want Seattle to draft a DT in round 1, but you maybe have noticed that Seattle's system for drafting has not worked terribly well in round 1 the last couple years. Not to rip Carpenter or Irvin- but those were not great years to address those positions in round 1, yet Seattle did it anyway. Seattle passed on better players to select Carpenter, and they passed on better players to select Irvin, all because areas of highest need receive significant added consideration. If anything, that points to DT not only being a possibility, but probably even the strongest possibility, regardless of whether it is a good DT group or not.

Well, I didn't title the thread "Why I think Seattle will NEVER go DT in the first round."I think these guys have a few positions they won't take in the first round unless the talent is outstanding for that position. Receiver and DT I would put in that category, simply because they have shown a tendency to look at free agents first at those positions. It isn't because of value either, it is because they don't like to take first rounders who probably won't contribute right away, and with few exceptions receivers and defensive tackles seem to struggle that first season. Thus, a seeming bias towards free agents. Where value kicks in is the draftee measured against the depth of his class. You mention Richardson, an outstanding player. If he is there at 25 I imagine Schneider would be all over that pick, and this thread will look pretty dumb. I think we both suspect Richardson will be long gone. So yeah, me saying they don't like to take DTs in the first round is a bit thick.

You mention Carpenter and Irvin, but you have to take into account that in addition to filling a need with those picks, they tried to trade back instead of taking Carpenter, and they did trade back with Irvin. They almost traded back a second time with Irvin. The Carpenter pick was Cable's first year, and I am pretty sure Cable looked at the 2010 squad and told Pete there was just no chance that group could be made to work, we have to fix this Effer now. Not enough nasty. I see the first three rounds of 2011 as somewhat desperate, especially with the Whitehurst 3rd round pick being absent. IF you haven't noticed, Cable gets what Cable wants. Even Sweezy was a Cable thing.

You mention Irvin, which is interesting to me. like or hate the pick, I think Irvin supports my stance. First DE off the board was Irvin, in a weak class. His unique skill, pure speed, matched a Seattle unique need. Will a DT at 25 match the same way? I kind of doubt it.

Although, the more I think about it, I could see Seattle taking a guy like Ansah at 25 just to be a pass rushing 3rd round DT, like Jones was, just because his unique skill matches Seattle's need.

Sorry for the long response time. I was on a business trip and posting a message on an android longer than 15 words long was agony- it's like typing with your toes.

Scottemojo wrote:I think these guys have a few positions they won't take in the first round unless the talent is outstanding for that position. Receiver and DT I would put in that category, simply because they have shown a tendency to look at free agents first at those positions. It isn't because of value either, it is because they don't like to take first rounders who probably won't contribute right away, and with few exceptions receivers and defensive tackles seem to struggle that first season. Thus, a seeming bias towards free agents. Where value kicks in is the draftee measured against the depth of his class. You mention Richardson, an outstanding player. If he is there at 25 I imagine Schneider would be all over that pick, and this thread will look pretty dumb. I think we both suspect Richardson will be long gone. So yeah, me saying they don't like to take DTs in the first round is a bit thick.

Well, for all we know, they might grade Kawann Short or Sly Williams higher than Sheldon Richardson. Which isn't as insane as you might think- I've seen one NFL source that recently had Williams as his #2 DT (behind Lotulelei). It's very possible the Seahawks might like the value at #25 whether Richardson is there or not.

Scottemojo wrote:You mention Carpenter and Irvin, but you have to take into account that in addition to filling a need with those picks, they tried to trade back instead of taking Carpenter, and they did trade back with Irvin. They almost traded back a second time with Irvin. The Carpenter pick was Cable's first year, and I am pretty sure Cable looked at the 2010 squad and told Pete there was just no chance that group could be made to work, we have to fix this Effer now. Not enough nasty. I see the first three rounds of 2011 as somewhat desperate, especially with the Whitehurst 3rd round pick being absent. IF you haven't noticed, Cable gets what Cable wants. Even Sweezy was a Cable thing.

I think the reason we've seen the team go DL in free agency is because average to above average defensive lineman are more common and carry less value league wide than an average to above average offensive lineman. Alan Branch and Jason Jones hit FA and get contracts under $10 million. Ben Grubbs hits FA and gets a $36 million contract. And then you have ridiculous contracts like the ones given for Derrick Dockery, Kris Dielman, Jahri Evans, etc.

While megastar DL tend to get megabucks, the middle of the road DL are often FA bargains. The reason Seattle went after guys like Clemons, Brock, Hargrove, Branch, and Jones wasn't out of disdain for inexperience- it was because Schneider is a moneyball type GM and those were all moneyball type acquisitions, where the quality of the player exceeded the price tag.

Who knows? Maybe the moneyball trend will continue and Seattle will sign Desmond Bryant to a smaller contract than his talent probably deserves. That would be nice. But until that happens, I don't really see any reason to rule out DT in round 1.

As far as trading back- first of all- Seattle was missing picks in both of those years. It's hard to look like a late round genius when you only have 6 picks to work with. Everyone knew that trading down was a huge priority for JS long before the draft happened. Carpenter had nothing to do with that. In the case of Irvin, I think they traded down because they felt Irvin would be safe for 3 selections, and they got a pretty generous offer from Philly to make the move.

Scottemojo wrote:You mention Irvin, which is interesting to me. like or hate the pick, I think Irvin supports my stance. First DE off the board was Irvin, in a weak class. His unique skill, pure speed, matched a Seattle unique need. Will a DT at 25 match the same way? I kind of doubt it.

I don't think a player needs to fit Seattle's profile perfectly to be worthy of a 1st round pick. Tom Cable has a history of drafting or otherwise developing tall, lightweight lineman. Carpenter was not especially tall and was nowhere near lightweight.

Additionally, I am not quite sure what Seattle's "ideal" 3-tech looks like. Do you? My guess is that they view 3-tech as a platoon much like LDE. On rushing downs they seem to prefer a beefy type (Mebane in 2010, Branch in 2011 and 2012) and on 3rd downs they switch to a pass rush specialist (Terrill in 2010, Hargrove in 2011, Jones in 2012). I am pretty sure they drafted Jaye Howard in the hopes that he could unseat Jones as a specialist, but that hasn't happened because they want to play their specialists on rush downs occasionally and Howard is abysmal against the run.

I think the 3-tech need is overblown, personally. Anyone that thinks we must fix our pass rush with a DT and doesn't propose a trade for JJ Watt or Geno Atkins should probably be checked into a madhouse. It'd be like the Mariners trying to add more runs to their offense through third base or catcher when you have a guy at first base hitting .189. 3-tech isn't even the biggest problem on our D-line. It was a slightly above average area last season on a line that saw struggles from Red Bryant and Bruce Irvin, and has a bleak future from Chris Clemons unless you believe AP has rendered ACL's magically irrelevant.

Last edited by kearly on Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The defense will only get better, even if Pete Carroll has to bring in 100 new players to fill the DE/DT or OT position. My thoughts are that Seattle needs another playmaker, either a big/fast WR or a bigger, hands type TE. Hopefully one or both will be available in the first two rounds. Another possibility is a 2d round pick for QB Flynn. Three picks in the first round would really be a luxury.

General Manager wrote:We have seen them reach in the first round and it really hasn't worked out well. BPA this year.

In John Schneider's mind they are always drafting by BPA. It's not like there is one magical draft board that determines who BPA is, as much as Mel Kiper would like to believe it.

I can't comment on Carpenter, but Seattle had a very high grade on Bruce Irvin. He was supposedly one of three favorites, with the other two going in the top 10 picks (and one of them winning DROY).

I agree with the point you made but lets not pretend that Carp and Irvin were not a reach because most if not all the pro scouts gave them a lower grade than where they were drafted. That's what a reach is.

There were at least 7 teams that had a first round grade on Irvin- including the Jets who held the very next pick. Rex Ryan looked visibly upset when Irvin was selected.

In the case of Carpenter, there were three teams that would have drafted Carpenter immediately after Seattle had they passed- Chicago, Pittsburgh and Green Bay. There were some teams with very good drafting track records that had both those players on their 1st round board.

I'm not saying that either pick was a great value, but I think reach is perhaps too strong a word because it implies they could have gotten those players later, which is demonstrably untrue. That said, I agree with the spirit of what you mean- those weren't huge draft steals by any stretch of the imagination. Where I disagree is the idea that Pete or John felt that their methodology was a mistake. Schneider has a system and he stays true to it- even if it sometimes means taking an underwhelming value in round 1 to address a major need.

Pete said that it would be tough this year to add 10 players that "stick" and that was a good problem. Then I heard him say that we needed to beef up the D line with a player then he corrected himself mid sentence and said maybe several players kind of jokingly (but maybe not). I also have heard him a John say they truly covet players that "tilt" the field.

IMO if the FO feels we get the same pieces back that we started with this year (top 5 D) and our offense starts where it left off then maybe a DT isn't in the plan for R1. Maybe we can get that player that truly tilts the field instead? All speculation but it would not hurt my feelings if we went with something other than DT with the first pick. In fact put me down for what the OP suggests.